History Yalta's world is uniquely ending. The United Nations, created to ensure stability and security in it, no longer performs both of these functions. No matter how paradoxical it may sound, the main reason should be considered the world between the world's leading centers of power. It turned out to be too global and too long.
On the one hand, this is as good as all conflicts, even local ones, are becoming more and more destructive and bloody. Over the 3,5 year of the war in Bosnia, the number of victims (killed and wounded) reached 200 thousand. However, nobody knows for sure. A number of sources mention up to 300 thousand, although officially the UN prefers to rely on the "consensus figure" in 100 thousand. However, nobody opposes 2,2 million refugees. And this, please note, is only a conflict of low intensity, i.e. by military standards, just a small family squabble, without the massive use of regular armies of advanced industrialized countries.
But, on the other hand, it should be recognized that this is bad, since, having fulfilled its original function, the Yalta geopolitical mechanism ceased to work. It is very difficult to imagine demarches like the leaving of the UN conference room by representatives of leading countries during the discussion of the most important issues of international security during the times of, say, the post-war USSR. Because then the case had all chances to end soon with the exchange of strategic nuclear strikes. And this moment was clearly understood by all politicians involved in international affairs on both sides of the curtain.
It should be noted that once the system did a global failure. After 17 years from the date of the end of World War II, in 1962, the Caribbean crisis occurred, which almost did not become the beginning of the Third World War. The parties suddenly hiccupped, woke up, slept off their faces and preferred for the best agreement with the world. The USSR removed missiles from Cuba, the United States withdrew them from Turkey and Western Europe. However, this shock was enough for everyone to come to their senses and not to joke like that.
Unfortunately, the world has changed today. Detente and disarmament policies led to conditions that were fundamentally different from Yalta. Neither side has the capacity to wage a global war with any positive goal. Reciprocal guaranteed nuclear destruction cannot be called such.
And without a positive goal, the very concept of war between equal opponents has lost its meaning. No matter who is the first to use strategic nuclear weapon, in any case, the winner will come out except cockroaches, which will get nuclear ashes for the long years of nuclear winter. Such a result is justified only in the version "do not you get to anyone." It is understandable for sensible people that in such conditions it is only possible to talk about the war in the media and show it in blockbusters, but it can only be conducted by the big ones against the small ones, such as the USA against Afghanistan, NATO against Libya, the coalition against Iraq, or the terrorists against the socially and politically weak ( like LIH (forbidden in the Russian Federation) against American puppets in the Middle East or against Europe). But definitely not the United States and / or NATO against the Russian Federation or even China.
Together with the joy of achieving the goals declared by the relaxation of international tension in the 70-ies of the twentieth century, the retribution came for it. If practically any trick in public geopolitics does not lead to the immediate beginning of the Third World War, then this means a critical decrease in the relevance of compliance with the Yalta norms. Permanent representatives of four countries at the UN (Great Britain, USA, France and Ukraine) left the hall at the moment when the Syrian Ambassador Bashar Jaafari took the floor, denouncing the double standards of the West in the fight against terrorism.
Almost bydlyatski. No, well, what do we do for it? Yes, we wanted to spit on the opinion of the Syrian. We consider only our opinion to be correct. Point. And in fact, they are absolutely right. For the third consecutive year, starting in February of 2014, from the Ukrainian Maidan, or to be more precise, for the eighth year (starting with the 08 / 08 / 08 war) the collective West is more frankly showing disregard for the norms of the Yalta world. So what? And nothing!
Sanctions. Counter-sanctions. All sorts of embargoes, undercover and not so, - all this is sheer garbage. For there is no main thing - the horror from the throw of the Soviet tank wedges to the shores of the Atlantic, bloody battles in the Fulda Corridor, a combined air and sea landing on the British Isles, a desperate aviation and submarines with US Navy carrier groups in the Central and North Atlantic. And without him, why show respect?
Since there is no respect even in the supreme body of international security - the UN Security Council - then where will it come from in the structures of secondary and real policies that are not initially responsible? Especially when it comes to organizations, by their nature, as if they were generally private, independent, they adhered to the UN for solidity. For example, about Human Rights Watch. More 80 humanitarian organizations have called on the UN member countries to exclude Russia from the UN Human Rights Council (HRC) because of the situation with Syria!
In short, it finally goes to the collapse of the UN as the main geopolitical mechanism of international security. The organization has already been publicly used as a simple wrapper for Western desires. If any of her resolutions succeed in covering up her whim - well. No - well, to hell with it, we can do without it. By the way, Libya and Iraq were fine.
While the world was drifting towards obvious unipolarity, this did not play any role, but when the leader was exhausted and, as they say, she found a scythe on a stone, the situation changed fundamentally. Geopolitics is gradually returning to multipolarity, and it is categorically incompatible with such arrogant conceit of "one of the partners".
The problem, however, is that it is already impossible in principle to return the former respect for the UN mechanism. The West will not give up the original parity of its rights in the UN, and, let's be honest, there are a lot of things on the planet, including the Lugansk and Donetsk Republics, the 201 state. 193 of them are members of the UN, but in any serious way there is only a little more than a dozen solving. From a mutually recognized neutral place to find mutually acceptable solutions to controversial UN issues, it has long been turned into a mixture of bureaucracy with the global international market, where an absolute majority of participants only trade their votes in favor of certain political and material preferences.
This means that an urgent need is emerging for a new, more efficient system. Another question is that without total and, more importantly, public destruction, the old system will not give its place to it. So fights here can not be avoided. It will not happen tomorrow, but the fact that it has become inevitable - the issue is actually resolved.